 We have dogs and we have potatoes. There's no difference between decapitating all of these dogs and chopping up these potatoes to eat them. Yeah, if you're going to feed people with it, there's no difference. Why do you care about humans? We have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. If we have the ability to differentiate from right and wrong, why do we cut animals' heads off for a sandwich? You can kill animals. If you're hungry, you want to eat something, you can kill it. You're not hungry, bro. You got other things to eat. I believe that. They're below us and we can use them because they're below us. That's your view. Yeah, essentially. It's a really f***ed up worldview. It's a supremacist mindset. But mine isn't like that. It's exactly like that. Through the animal's eyes, is it bad? A knife goes into their throat and their head is cut off of their shoulders. Is that bad for the animals? Depends how hungry are you. I don't know, it depends how hungry are you. Just, you are. If you're hungry, then you would kill as well. No, I don't think it's justified to kill people because I'm hungry. Can I kill you if I'm hungry? Of course. So I can't torture animals in your ethical view. I can only cut their head off. Yeah. So humans said it's okay to abuse those who are smaller than them? Yeah. Or weaker than them. So they brought it's okay? Yeah. Okay. And the Nazis said it's okay to gas chamber the Jews because they were a minority in Germany, yeah? Yeah. And that's okay? No, it's not. The Nazis said it was okay? They said it was okay, but it wasn't. Yeah, and whites in America thought it was okay to enslave black people because they said it was okay? No, because they... So just because humans say it's okay to do this to animals, does that make it okay? It's an easy question, man. Hey, for me, it's no. No, no, no, wait. For me, it's 100% no. That's psychotic. That's an evil world. And you're wrestling with this. To be honest, I feel like I'm arguing with someone that just doesn't give a s*** about the feelings of others. That's what I feel like. I'm arguing with someone who has no empathy. We're at the table here and says that meganism is a moral obligation that proved me wrong. And you've sat down. I don't know why you've sat down. Are you sat down to prove me wrong? That's right. I think I will argue. Maybe it's a bit too much, I think. Maybe it's being vegetarian could be... Maybe it could be acceptable in my view, but being vegan, I think it's a bit too much to say it's a moral obligation to go that far. Why? Because I think, and you can correct me, if I don't know it. So if you are vegan, you're not allowed to eat the animal products. You're allowed to do whatever you want. But when you're a vegan, you don't do them because you have an ethical reason not to. So you basically are choosing not to as a boycott. Yeah, but you're supposed to not eat it, eat them. Yeah, you can't call yourself a vegan if you eat animal products. But I'm saying it's not like allowed or not allowed. You do it because it's the right thing to do. Okay, well, so I think being vegetarian is like... One of the good reasons for behind it is that it's about numbers game, I think. It's about some numbers. I think a very solid argument behind it is that it's about feeding animals versus feeding humans with the grains that we feed the animals with. Like, if we were not to feed the animals all the grain that we are producing, we would feed more humans than the animals. So this is like... But that's an environmental argument. Veganism is in animal rights. You know animal rights, huh? Yeah, of course. Like, you know how we have human rights, fundamental rights, don't enslave, don't murder. I'm actually a lawyer. Okay, great. So you know, yeah, negative rights. You know what negative rights are, okay. So the reason you have a moral, in my view, you have a moral obligation to be vegan is because if you, and vegetarian, okay, let's just say we didn't eat the flesh of some hypothetical people, right? We didn't eat their flesh. They have certain products that say human beings are being used for their hair and their breast milk. They're breeding them. They're using them for these products. They have no rights. They're owned by me. Yeah. They're essentially property. Yes. They're the means to an end, which is my financial gain. Yeah. Human beings are whoever they are of deriving whatever pleasure they get from using these products. Then they go to the slaughterhouse to have their rights of life violated. And then their bodies are given to human meat eaters. Right? Now you don't think as a vegetarian, you have an obligation to be vegan and boycott that system. Okay. Okay. Now I'm beginning to understand your viewpoint. Okay. You're saying this is basically not right. Before you go ahead, do we have an obligation as a vegetarian to avoid that system? In your example with the humans, like the hypothetical human stuff like that. Of course, like you don't eat human or human products, whatever you do. So you'd be an obligation to be vegan at that point in this hypothetical way and not a vegetarian that supported that system. So it's a bit weird analogy, but people do like hair wigs and stuff. People just lose their hair and just... Choose the product. It's fingernails, whatever. So yeah, no, no, but in the dairy and egg industry, those animals have no rights. Yes. They're exploited for their eggs and milk. Yeah, that's right. There's a lot of welfare issues that happen. Of course, calf stealing, mastitis, lameness, horns being cauterized. You got hens that produce egg, egg, egg, egg, beet clipping, they die in the sheds there. But outside of the welfare issues, the rights violations that happen to these animals, they are property and they get slaughtered. Yeah? That's right, that's right. Yeah, this is the legal standpoint. As it is, they're just property and there are some criminal laws that if you torture them or do unethical stuff, then you get into trouble basically in most simple terms. Certain forms of torture. Certain forms of torture are legal. Oh yeah, that's... Immutations. They do like the head... Their existence is torture. The egg laying hens existence is torture. Yeah, this is the capitalism for you. They just maximise their gain. They're trying to... Supply and demand. Supply and demand, yeah. They're trying to maximise it and those animals aren't meant to live like that, of course, it's not in their nature. This is the bad face of capitalism, I think. Yeah, and veganism is basically a boycott of those. Yeah. Because here, we have a direct supply and demand chain. Yeah, the one feeds the other, so like that you mean. Yeah, yeah, by the eggs and dairy, this happens to the cows and the hens. So why don't we have an obligation to avoid those rights violations, but we do in the meat industry? Yeah, I agree that the animals shouldn't be treated like that, of course, but just by killing animals, I don't think this is like a wrong thing to do because at the end of the day, they are, of course, they're not humans and they are there for our benefit. This is like my standpoint. The animals or the trees or the stones or the water or whatever is on the earth, if you, within the reason, you can make use of that whatever is there. Okay, so are you equating like animals to stones and trees and all that because are you putting them all in together? They are for the benefit of humankind, that's what my standpoint is. Are you equating like animals, like cows and hens to stones and trees? Do you think they're equal in terms of ethics? Of course not. Ethical consideration? No, of course not. They are equal in terms of that humans have a right to make use of them. Like because they use the skin of the horse or maybe they just ride the horse, they just use them as vehicles. There's nothing wrong with riding a horse. Are they ethically equal? Do they both deserve the same ethical consideration? Trees, stones? Of course, you can smash a rock but you can smash a chicken's brain or whatever. Okay, and why do chickens deserve ethical consideration? Because they're alive and they feel trained. But trees are alive, so if you... Trees are alive? Yeah, but... Chickens deserve ethical consideration. Because they are alive and they are not like trees, so it's not the same, I think. They're sentient, being. The sum of the insects, like they don't really have pain sensors, even the animals, some insects. Chickens don't have pain sensors? No, no, some insects. Yeah, I agree with you, I agree with you. But I'm talking about chickens here because eggs come from chickens. So chickens matter because they are not like trees, trees are alive, but they are conscious, sentient. Do you know these ones? Yeah, yeah, sentient. They have experience, not intelligence. Because plants are intelligent. So intelligence is like IQ. Intelligence is like IQ, isn't it? Yeah, and certain organisms can have intelligent responses. Process data, you're intelligent. Yeah, but this is intelligent, but it's not sentient. Like, you can calculate, you're intelligent. But chickens are sentient. Yeah, so I actually understand your point, but my first, I just wanted to remind you, my first point was, not about this aspect of this argument, like of this concept, my point was the numbers. Like, you can feed a lot of animals with the grain, and instead of just feeding those animals, you could just feed the grain and feed the bigger population of humans. So like, world hunger and stuff like that. Yeah, but the animals in the eggs and dairy industry are eating grain too, but that's beside the point of veganism. Veganism is not about feeding grain. That's a resource issue. Yeah, so veganism is an animal rights philosophy about ethics, right, of the animals, right? Now, the reason you said that we can take what we need from animals, we can take what we need because they benefit us? Evidently, if a group of beings who are sentient benefit another group of beings who are also sentient, because they benefit that group of beings, we are justified to take what we want from them. So, yeah, it is, so, because it's not really reasonable, it's not realistic to believe those things, I think, because we're not living in ideal world. Like, we don't have solar panels that we just raise our hand to the sun and get energy from them. So, it's perfectly normal for human beings to make use of the other resources. I don't care what's normal, by the way. I don't care if whatever horrible feeling the blank was normal. I care if it's morally right to do, if it's ethical to do, okay? Are you saying that we have to live by deriving benefit from chickens and cows? No, of course we don't have to. Okay, so it's not like we don't live in a perfect world, so we have to get eggs and dairy. Like, obviously, you know, there are alternatives to these products. So, it's like really not that hard to avoid. Are you a vegetarian? No, I'm not, I'm just, I eat, I eat, I eat, I eat, I thought you were a vegetarian. This is a whole different topic, okay. No, but it shouldn't matter. It does matter, because you're arguing for a position that you don't hold yourself. No, no, but I said, like I tried to say it, but I believe it's a fair argument for, on behalf of the vegetarianism, is that it's numbering scheme. Like, it's a fair argument, it's a sound argument. Are you saying that if we advocate vegetarianism instead of veganism, we'll have more numbers? Yeah, it will help a practical issue, which is like a world hunger, but your point is more like ethical. So, my understanding was to be clear, it's a moral obligation to other humans, not like the other animals. It's a moral obligation to the animals that we abuse and murder and violate the rights. It is a moral obligation to be vegetarian or try to be vegetarian, or at least try to consume less meat, because of the other people, like there are people suffering because of world hunger. And this is a solid argument, like if you don't feed that much animals, and if you feed that grain into the other humans, like the people in Africa, then it's... Why do you care about humans? Because they are basically the creatures on earth who are most deserving, whatever it is. Humans are the most deserving? Most deserving, yeah. Like of all the creatures, they are the most deserving. Why? Why? Because we know what we have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, and that makes us deserving. If we have the ability to differentiate from right and wrong, why do we cut animals' heads off for a sandwich? You can cut an animal's head for a sandwich, you just don't torture the guy. What makes us special is we can differentiate from right and wrong, and that makes us the most important beings. Why do we decapitate beings who we consider not special? Do you think that's right or wrong? We decapitate the animals' ears just behind them. Slashing off their heads in order to cut their body parts off. And is that right or wrong? So that is totally depending on the reason. If you're hungry, you can do whatever. I'm not saying you're starving, you're in your situation right now. What's your name? Ali. Ali? Ali. You're in this situation right now, is it right or wrong to decapitate an animal to eat them? If you're going to eat them, yeah, why not? Is it right? If you're not going to waste it, like if you're not going to just hunt. Is it ethical to do? Yeah, if you're just hunting them Yeah, okay, so you've got vegan food here available to you. And you've got an animal, you've got a decapitate. Which one is it right and wrong to do? So I believe, so yeah, my point is it is not wrong because at the first, like in the first position, like from the start, I believe that animals and whatever is in there in the nature is for the benefit of human beings. Like human beings do have the right to make use of them. So it's fine to cut off animals' heads if you have other options in your view. Yes, basically that. It's fine, like basically, there's no difference between basically getting a bunch of plants and eating them and decapitating a bunch of animals and eating them in terms of morality. They're both equally the same thing. Yeah, because at the end, they both are there to serve humans. Okay, and if we have some dogs over here, we have dogs, do you like dogs? Yep. Okay, and we have potatoes. Yeah. There's no difference between decapitating all of these dogs to eat them and chopping up these potatoes to eat them in terms of morality, your morality. Yeah, if you're going to feed people with it, there's no difference. Yeah, even though we have a bunch of food. I mean, if you could eat rugs, yeah, why not? The rugs do, like you could eat what there was. No, no, no, brother, I'm just saying we've got a bunch of other vegan food we can eat. We're doing it for a choice because we like the taste or whatever. Yeah, yeah. It's okay to do, chop up dogs. Yeah, in my opinion, this is not the right or wrong situation because if your intention is to eat it, then it should be fine. But I'm not saying that if you eat vegetarian food, so I'm saying that actually, if you do eat vegetarian food, it's actually a better thing because then you can feed more humans. Well, it would have mattered if it's not, but oh yeah, because I only care about humans. Okay, let's go. I'm ready for you now. I know where you're going. Now, if I put a bunch of humans here on this side, and we have a bunch of vegan food here, is it okay to chop the humans up to eat them if we have a bunch of other vegan food to eat? So you've got humans at one side and you've got vegan food. Let's just say they're not from this country. They're on an island somewhere. So they're kind of like live out in the wild, like they're kind of like a tribal kind of community that are isolated from the rest of the world. And we don't know too much about them there. They're sort of out there like living their own life in their own society, right? Is it okay to chop them up and eat them? Is it morally the same as chopping up potatoes? No, you don't eat human beings. Why? Because it's unethical. Why is it unethical? It's because it's cannibalism and it's considered unethical. Why is cannibalism unethical? It doesn't feel right. I don't think like you have family, like you don't eat them, right? After they die or whatever, you just bury them or burn them. No, I'm just starting to... I'm trying to figure out why it's wrong. Yeah, it's all about humans, but not wrong to eat animals, even though we're both sentient beings. It's not the same level of sentient beings. So like you said, your head is called the smart on apple. That's, you call it a sentient, but... Not sentient. But you call it sentient. This has intelligence, IQ, but it's not sentient. What did you say which had sentient? Some, you gave an analogy, wasn't it? Animals have sentient. So like we have this artificial intelligence coming up and it's intelligent. Yeah, it's intelligent, but it's not sentient. Yeah, but how do you know? It would be really difficult to know if an artificial intelligence is sentient, but we know that non-human animals and human animals are sentient. We make an inference, because basically we have subjective experience, we have brains, we have eyes, nervous system, and sentient animals have those things too. So we basically give them the same benefit as we give other humans. So you're basically asking me what was my point when I said, when I differentiated humans and other animals, and I said other... You think it's unethical to chop up humans if we have other options, but it's not unethical to chop up animals. Now I'm asking you, is there a characteristic? Yeah, it's the... Is there a characteristic that separates humans and animals that makes it wrong to kill and cut up humans and okay to killing them? What is that characteristic? I actually mentioned it's the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. So animals don't do that. Animals just live the life. Okay, so ability to differentiate right and wrong. So let's just say the people in this isolated society don't have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. So they are basically humans, but practically... Yeah, like a small baby doesn't either, by the way. A small baby doesn't either, by the way. And some humans that are born with some severe cognitive disability, they often don't know, but we still protect them with human rights. But I'm just saying if this group here didn't have the ability, say that they had about the ability as dogs do, because dogs know right and wrong to a certain degree, and so do certain other animals. They might not understand why they've done something wrong, but they might, they learn right and wrong. But let's just say they had about the same degree as a cow or a pig. So that's intelligence. It's, I don't really know how effective intelligence... Is it okay to kill them though? No, no, it's not about that. That was your characteristic. I'm just saying, if they didn't have the ability to differentiate right and wrong, is it okay to kill humans then? So then they would be biologically human, but they wouldn't be human in the sense that we attribute ourselves with, like the Renaissance and stuff like... So we can now chop them up and eat them? We can go through and shoot them all in the face and cut them up and eat them. It's quite a hypothetical explanation, but I understand your point. Human beings actually exist like this. In society right now, there are people and babies and people with... But they're like really, really small, minor things. It doesn't matter. Is it okay to go out and shoot all of them and eat them? Zero point, one, one, one, one, one. I don't care if it's one. I don't care if it's one of them. No, I'm just saying it's being practical methods. Even if it's one, is it okay to shoot them in the face and eat them? And you're basically imagining a human that cannot differentiate right and wrong. Right and wrong, yeah. Because of there maybe some inherent... I'm just asking you, is it okay to shoot them and eat them then? No, because I would say they are still human. Because being human... So you said no? Well, let me finish that. Being human isn't just about differentiating right and wrong. There is also a biological aspect to it. But usually they are like 99.99% together anyway. So we don't do this separation like... Rights are supposed to protect minorities from bad things happening. So the majority can't use excuses to kill them, right? So it doesn't matter if it's one or if it's ten. But you're saying it's not actually if they cannot differentiate right and wrong. It's not that, because you won't allow me to kill a human and eat them if they can't differentiate right and wrong, yeah? No, no. So it's not that, it's something else as well? It is that, but you cannot just say it's just that. Okay, and is it a collection of things then? Yeah, of course. And then what's the next thing? Biology, can you say? Yeah, of course, because when you say... So basically you're trying to define human because when I differentiate it between humans and animals... The morally significant characteristic is about human beings. Yeah, so morally significant characteristic is differentiating right and wrong. But just because one person doesn't have that, right? It wasn't, right. It wasn't, because when I asked you about killing a human who can't, you said, oh no, no, they're still human. So it wasn't that, actually. No, no, that's like the gist of it. That's like the biggest part of it. But it's just not just that. Yeah, yeah, so you're gonna do one or two. You're gonna do another thing as well? No, no, no, because if you say that, then you'll say, as you are saying that, now you can just kill some people like this. I can just apply it to human, exactly. So this is what... And you won't think it's okay? Yeah, because it's not okay. Yeah, because that... And why? So now we get to a point, right? You know what I'm about to do. Every characteristic you say that is morally significant, I'm gonna apply it to humans and I'm gonna say, okay, they can't differentiate right and wrong. You said biology, they're biologically human. They are biologically human, yeah. And that's what makes them morally valuable? For some reason? No, so what makes them morally valuable is that their ability to differentiate right and wrong. But if you go with this mentality... It's not broke. So I just removed that from the hypothetical human. No, no, no, bro, no, because you keep repeating it. I removed that from the hypothetical human and you still thought it was wrong to kill them. So it's not that. It's something else. Now what is it? It's wrong to kill them. And then we can add them both together and apply it to the human. Okay, let me try this way. I think it's still wrong to kill them because let's imagine that guy is your brother and someone... Okay, they're not your brother. I told you they're isolated. This group of people are isolated. Well, I'm telling you, it could be your brother. I'm saying they're not in this hypothetical. Is it okay to kill them then? But they're someone's brother, isn't it? No, they're not. In this hypothetical, they are not. They don't have family. Is it okay to kill them then? I mean, you could argue like this. I'm asking you... It's not practical. I understand. This is testing your ethical view. Yeah, but you can take this with any view, anyone, anywhere. No, I'm taking it with your view, why it's okay to chop up animals and not okay to chop up humans. Now we're at... He has a brother. He doesn't have a brother in this hypothetical. He can't differentiate right and wrong. He can't do that in this hypothetical. Is it okay to... We can even breed humans that we remove that trait from them. We can breed them so they don't have family. Is it okay to make a bunch of humans like this, put them in the conditions that we do to animals and cut their heads off just to eat them when we have vegan options available? Look, biologically speaking, humans share the same cell structure with animals. So they can be eaten. Like they can be eaten, they people eat them like strong. Is it okay to eat humans? No, it doesn't make it okay to eat. Why not? I want to find out why you hold reverence for human life and desecrate the remains of animal life. Well, it's very hard to answer your question, mainly because maybe I'm not really understanding how a human would be without a sentiment. So it's like very hard to imagine, that's why. It's easy to imagine. Give me an example. It's very easy to imagine. Let's just say they have about the same understanding of right and wrong as your average cow or your average dog. You said it's okay to kill dogs and eat them. Yeah. Yeah, so it's just a human being with the average capacity to understand right and wrong as your average dog or cow. No, okay. Very easy to imagine. Okay, okay. Now I understand your point. Can we shoot them in the face and eat them? No, no, no. Okay. Now I had this more organized life in my head. Hopefully I'll be able to give you an answer. So as you said, the one and only main difference between humans and other animals is the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. That's not an answer to the question. I asked you, is it okay to shoot them and if they have about the ability of a cow or dog? It's a yes or it's a no and then you can explain? Okay. Is it okay to shoot them and kill them? Okay. Firstly, no. Okay. Because it is so beyond possibility that it doesn't define what human is. So... What do you mean it's beyond possibility? What do you mean logical or... It's no, it's not possible. It's logically impossible for you to understand. This fictional scenario. Okay, in this fictional scenario, yes, you can eat them. But this fictional scenario does exist. Okay, one second. Before you go, because now you're saying... Yeah. It's not a fictional scenario. It's a hypothetical to test your ethical theory, right? Yeah, yeah. So in this hypothetical, there's a human being who has about the understanding of a right and wrong as a cow does. Yeah, yeah. It's completely okay to kill them. Yeah. To kill a billion of them. Yeah, because basically they're not human. In this point of view, they're not human. They are exactly like Tarion. This gentleman here, this gentleman here. Ross, they're exactly like me. The only thing is their ability to understand right and wrong is about at the level of a cow. So we can kill billions of them and eat them for eternity? No, but you're saying in this role or in this hypothetical world? Because in that hypothetical world, there are no one's brother, there are no one's sister. But here they are... I'm testing your ethical theory with a hypothetical to see if it's a... Yeah, but you cannot apply, but that's why I said you can't kill them in that hypothetical world. I can? This one? No, let's just say they existed. These hypothetical beings existed in this world. Can we kill them and eat them? But there's somebody's sister, there's somebody's brother, there's somebody's mother. So you can't... I already said they're not. I already told you they're not. In that hypothetical world... We've bred them to be like this. You've bred... I told you about the real life, or... No, listen, brother. Can I farm? Can I genetically alter human beings to not have the level of understanding of right and wrong as a cow? Can I genetically alter them? Create a farm to mass breed them and slaughter them if they don't have family, right? They're exactly like us in every other way except they don't understand right and wrong as bad as much as a cow. Can I create a mass breeding camp where I just genetically alter them and murder them for burgers? Even though we have vegan options, can I do that? In your world... Just for argument's sake... No, can you? You can say ethical to do it. No, just for argument's sake, I'm not going to take into account that some... they will... Every now and then, one of them will be intelligent. Like, you're not going to check. Let's say all of them are non-sentient. They're not. They are sentient. They're completely sentient, dude. They're completely 100% sentient. They just don't understand right and wrong. No, they're completely human sentient. They just don't understand... They have the level of understanding of right and wrong as a cow. Sorry, sorry. It's my bad. I meant... When I meant by sentient, it's actually my bad. Yeah, they're sentient. What happens to them? It matters to them. If they were non-sentient, I wouldn't care about them. Yeah, we just assume none of them... None of them will ever be... It's basically embedded in the hypothetical. Yeah, yeah, I see. I'm trying to figure out if you really think it's okay to kill a being without this characteristic. Like they don't actually matter now. No, no, let me finish. So, let's say you breed them and you somehow check all of them to say... I don't know how you do it, actually, but none of them can do right and wrong. Yeah, we have a test, we have an amazing test that is 100% success rate, we know. Basically, if they fail, they're okay to eat. So you're imagining this word, right? So if they fail to test, they don't have the ability to right and wrong. They never fail. It's the test to see if they have the level of understanding of right and wrong as a cow. Yeah. And in this world, it's okay to shoot them in the face and eat them. So there's three things. Understanding, not intelligence. It's an easy question, man. No, no, no. For me, it's no. No, no, no, wait. For me, it's 100% no. That's psychotic, that's an evil world. No, no, no, wait. And you're wrestling with this. This is your world. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm not doing this. No, no, this is your world view. This is your ethical view in action. Look, if someone cannot differentiate right or wrong, then it doesn't, so, okay, no, no, no, no. So they don't matter morally until they do? Just, just. Sorry, I want to apologize because now I actually think of something. Just because a human cannot differentiate right or wrong, it doesn't mean that they're not going to ever be able to differentiate because some psychotic people they make a recovery. In the hypothetical, they never will. In the hypothetical, they will, but they will to the extent that a cow will. Well, the cow cannot differentiate the right or wrong. Well, to a certain degree, they can. Well, they don't just stop their babies to death. Yeah, but it's not. They don't just run up and headbutt people to death. Cows can differentiate some form of right and wrong. It's their innate nature. It's their innate nature, yeah. Cows do not just walk up and headbutt people for no reason. Yeah, like normal people don't do that either. My friends have sanctuaries. You don't, no, no, no. Cows do not just attack people. Yes, it's like their nature. If they're defending their child, they do. If you shot their friend, they cry. They have some understanding. So don't, you can't free cows lower than they are. So these are the medical humans have about the experience of a cow in terms of understanding right and wrong. So a cow is an animal, but so is a snake, and so is a scorpion. And a scorpion will sting you if you try to go across it. Yeah, but that's not the question. It's their nature. That's not the question. The question is okay to mass murder these people. Okay, I'm telling you. The animals are only doing that because it's their nature to do it. A snake would bite you because it's its nature. So we can leave if we finish it here. We have these hypothetical humans. They'll always have this degree of our right and wrong understanding. It's okay to mass kill them and eat them. Even though we have vegan options and we're not doing it for survival, yeah? If they cannot differ, just for argument's sake, I accept it. Yeah, I accept it that the main thing that makes human a human is the ability to differentiate right from wrong. And you said, okay, now they can't do it. No, they can do it to the level of a cow, is what I'm saying. Because you kill cows, or you pay for cows to be killed for this reason. That's your reason for killed animals and harm animals. So is it okay to do that to humans with this characteristic? So I can answer this like this. I don't believe any animal, they have the ability to differentiate right from wrong. They do whatever they do because it's their nature. And I'm not gonna, no, that's not an answer to the question. The answer to the question, answer to the hypothetical. Yeah, I'm going to answer it, but I'm going to answer is it like this? Is it okay to kill them? You have to answer. It's okay to kill them? Yes or no, and then answer. It's okay to kill them. Provided that they do not have the ability to differentiate right from wrong. Not to the extent just the cows, because I believe they don't have that too. Has to be to the extent of a cow, because otherwise, why do you kill cows? Why do you allow cows to be killed for you? Yeah, because humans make use of whatever. Yeah, and we made use of these humans, that's okay. They wouldn't be humans anymore. There's left. No, by your definition, no, but by every other metric, they look exactly the same. They don't want to die. They feel pain, suffering, happiness, just like a cow. Only thing removed is their ability to understand right and wrong to the degree of a cow. Yeah, and I believe this is a significant difference. If you, okay, so we'll leave it as that. You believe it's okay to kill these humans and eat them just the same as you do for animals? They wouldn't be humans by this definition. By your definition, but by every other metric they are. So, okay, that's cool. I think we're done here. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. That's consistency. That's consistency going too far. I think most people would disagree with the hypothetical killing of the people. Yeah, I would too. Yeah, because it's just not practical. It just doesn't exist. Yeah, it's just how your worldview turns out. If you have an ethical view, this is where it goes. But mine is don't kill either. And that's how easy it is for me. Just making a sandbox and, okay, if you accept this, then you're doing this. I know how you do it, but. I'm trying to figure out, if you accept it here, you have to accept it here to be consistent. That's all. It really doesn't work like this. It's our human... Yeah, I'm saying you have about the same justification to kill these other animals, as you do to kill humans with the same characteristics. That's about the same. And I think they're both unjustified. Do you think they're both justified? So what makes a human human that for you? So you're asking for help? What makes a human valuable is a different question. Is sentience? We are both sentient, so we're both matter. That's how I determine morality. So we both have interests? As far as our interests matter, they should be respected. Cows have interests not to be murdered. They don't want to, if you give them an option, are you going to die right now by this gun in your forehead? They don't want to die. So as far as their interests matter, we should respect those interests, which is to leave them be, respect their rights, not kill them and eat them, just like we expect. That's how easy it is for me. Sorry, it wasn't too fast, but do you think they're like the same or not? We're not on the same level. Like a child is not on the same level as you. Think you both deserve rights. A baby is not on the same level as you. I don't think it's okay to kill the baby. They don't understand right and wrong. It's the same status. Yeah, look. It's equal between the equals. Just because we're not completely equal in every way, that doesn't mean we don't deserve equal rights not to be murdered. It's just a fundamental approach at the beginning that my fundamental approach is that whatever is there is for the benefit of humans, but you need to be careful with what you do. So you need to be reasonable. And living with, by deriving benefit from those who can't defend themselves is like a different race deriving benefit from another race because they want benefit from this race of people. It's unjustifiable. Yeah, like basically slavery is similar to this. One group, a powerful group, deriving benefit from a minority group. And we do that to non-human animals. We're stronger than them. They're not going to attack you back. A chicken ain't going to attack you. A cow ain't going to attack you. If you try to do it to me, I'll attack you. But you can't do it to me. But you do it to these other animals because they're vulnerable, they're innocent. Do you know what I'm saying? Yeah, I know. Because we can. Yeah, I know. Do you think that's okay? At the first step, I believe because they are there for a reason because we can. Who said they're there for you? Are women here for you? Are women here for you? No, why would you say that? No, because you're saying animals are here for us. Who gave you the right to say that? Yeah, but... Who gave you that right? Okay, I understand you, I understand you. I understand you. Wait, but if you can take this by this opposite, like if you reverse it, you could take this the other way. You could say, okay, trees are sentient. They're not sentient. They feel... They're not sentient. No, if you pinch them, they would... They're not sentient. Make stimulus. That's a stimulus. So what, they're not sentient? So what? My phone has a stimulus. Do you want to see? Is my phone sentient? No, no. See that? It's not the same. It's not the same. It's not the same. Trees are intelligent, they're not sentient. So you can take it quite extremely other way around to you. Trees are not sentient, so I don't care. What's the gist of it? Being sentient is important because... Because it's everything you experience. They feel, basically they feel. It means they can feel. They can feel, you have a subjective experience. What happens to you matters to you, you know? A tree is just rooted into the ground, they don't have a brain functioning nervous system, they react to sunlight, they have, you know, they're just non-sentient computers. That's all they are. They're living, but they're not sentient. They don't have a brain. Animals do. There are some studies, I don't know the... Yeah, I've seen the studies, they're all on fun intelligence, they're not on sentience. They do classical music with the plants and they respond to it better. You know cows are sentient. You know when I stab a cow, they suffer. If I walked up and kicked that tree, you wouldn't stop me. Because it cannot move, it's not built like this. It's not built like that. You know trees are not sentient. And if you're gonna say that what we do to animals, cut their heads off, they're raped in the dairy industry with farmer's arms, their piglets are tortured and heads smashed on the ground, if you're gonna say that that is justified because of trees for some reason. No, no, no, it's not about, you can kill animals. If you're hungry, you want to eat something, you can kill it. You're not hungry though, you got other things to eat. That's my whole point. You got other things to eat. Yeah, I understand this. Yeah, I think my viewpoint is different because at the first, I believe that they are there for... They're below us and we can use them because they're below us. That's your view. Yeah, essentially. And the main reason is... So anyone you perceive as below you? Not me, as human, as race. What about humans? If I perceive other humans as below me, can I do that? Yeah, why is it different? Yeah, because they... I'm stronger than a lot of people? No, no, they do not have the ability to... I'm stronger than their children? They do not have the ability to... Men? They do not have the ability to differentiate right and wrong. It's a really f***ed up worldview. To say, Kozoo, I want to derive benefit of this group. And for you, it's animals. For some people, it's other people. They're both as f***ed up as each other. Yeah, it's not right. It's not right. Some people doing this against the Nazis, but they did to Jews or whatever. They think they're better, whatever, yeah. So it's rubbish. It's a supremacist mindset. But mine isn't like that. It's exactly like that. Animals are being murdered for you. It's exactly like that. Yeah, but they do not... Through the animal's eyes, is it bad? So because we don't live in an... So they have a knife put into their throat. A knife goes into their throat and their head is cut off of their shoulders. Is that bad for the animal? I mean, it's dying. Is it bad? You could say it's bad. Is it bad for you? It would be bad for me too. Okay, so it's bad for you, but it's not bad for them? Let me look. Is it bad? No, one sec, you didn't answer my question. I'm getting frustrated. Is it bad for the animals? It's bad for the animal. It's bad for the human. Okay, so it's bad. Can I continue? Go off on tangents, bro. That's why I'm trying to keep you on topic. What is good and what is wrong is all primarily based on the reason behind it. So you could say, oh, I'm dying, it's bad. Or you could say, oh, I'm dying because I'm here to defend my country or whatever. I'm stabbing you in the throat for a sandwich. Is that bad? Depends how hungry are you? I don't know. It depends how hungry are you? Just... Bro, in civilization right now, I've got other things to eat. Is it bad to stab you in the throat for a sandwich? Is that bad for you? Is it actually unethical to do? Yeah, if you're like... Okay. As I said, it's all about the reason behind it. Yeah, in your reason to do this to animals, yeah, because... It's because you like the taste of them. Some animals, I don't even like the taste of it. I don't like them. But you can get your nutrition from plant foods. I don't understand why not. Yeah, you can do it. But this is off topic now. So you know you can get your nutrition from plant foods. Why is it okay to stab animals today? It's because they're there to... for humans to make use of them. Essentially. Humans, other humans. So humans said it's okay to abuse those who are smaller than them? Yeah. Or weaker than them. So therefore it's okay? Yeah. Okay. And the Nazis said it's okay to gas chamber the Jews. I know you're going to say this. Because they were a minority in Germany, yeah? Yeah. Yeah? And that's okay? No, it's not okay. Because the Nazis said it was okay? Yeah, I know. They said it was okay, but it wasn't. Yeah, and whites in America thought it was okay to enslave black people. Because they said it was okay. No, because they... Is that okay? So just because humans say it's okay to do this to animals, does that make it okay? If you can process it, I understand it. If we say it's okay, it's okay. No, you should... Do you know that's a dictator behind set, bro? No, no, no. If you... No. Come on, bud. That's exactly what you're saying. You're... I'm not even misinterpreting you. You're saying they are here for us. We've said they're here for us. Right? We take benefit from them because we say so. That's your argument for doing it to them. Yeah. That's a dictator argument. It could be right, though. Like, if you... It could be right? For who? You? Yeah. Okay, if you were in the animal's position, would it be right? If I was an animal, then I wouldn't be... Talking like with you right now. Yeah, but animals, do you don't think animals don't want to be harmed? Do animals want to be harmed? It's all about survival instinct, isn't it? So they want to live, no matter what. It's more than survival instinct. They don't want to be harmed for... Yeah, of course, no one... Most of other reasons. No living animal wants to be... No living cell, no living organism wants to be... Die, you know, they don't want to die. Parrots don't care what happens to them. I'm talking about cows and pigs and chickens and birds and fish. They have brains, they have eyes, they have emotions. Yeah, I know, I know. To be honest, I feel like I'm arguing with someone that just doesn't give a s*** about the feelings of others. That's what I feel like. I'm arguing with someone who has no empathy. Oh, so you say I don't have empathy, so people can eat me like that or what? You don't have empathy for animals. It's very clear. And I could show you some footage, but I don't know if it's even worth it. No, no, no, don't do this. No, no. I'm just saying the animals, of course, you can't torture them. It's a terrible thing to do. It's like, why can't you torture them? Why would you torture them? Why can't you? Why do they matter? It's because torture is in itself wrong. But you can kill someone. OK, one sec, one sec. What if I derive benefit from it? Well, let me finish, brother. What if I derive benefit from the torture? Like personal pleasure or something like that. Is it OK then? No, you need to be imprisoned then. One second. Animals are put here for my benefit, like you said. You said that. I want to torture them to derive pleasure from it, which is also for my benefit. Let's just say it helps my illegal... Excuse me, it helps my depression to torture animals. Is that OK? No, torture is in itself is not another good thing. Why are they all put here for me? And they don't experience right and wrong. They don't understand right and wrong. So why does it matter? Because it doesn't matter, it's not about them. Torture is in itself wrong, like it's wrong. Well, so torturing what? Torturing is torturing this wrong? You cannot torture a rock. Why not? Because it doesn't have feelings. It cannot heal. OK, can I torture a carrot? No, no, it doesn't feel right, no. Right, yeah, of course not. But so I can't torture animals in your ethical view. I can only cut their head off. Yeah. So I can cut their head off, but I can't torture them. Yeah, basically, it's like guillotine was invented because it was the most painless state, isn't it? So you don't just stab them 100 times, just execute them. So do you eat chickens by any chance? Yes, but can we get back to the topic? No, the topic is, you don't think it's OK to torture animals. What if I said torture is inherent inside of animal agriculture? Inherent, meaning a part of the industry. Yeah, I know, it's terrible. I don't support it. I don't like it. But you buy the products from there? Yeah, I don't. I don't believe you, because of course you do. Do you eat bacon? No. You don't eat any pigs? No, no. So you don't eat animals? No, I eat animals, but the animals that I eat are there. Usually, like they're supposed to be, they go through a specific type of execution. And it's supposed to be there. Where? Where are these magical animals coming from? No, no, it's not about animals. So you feed the animal, you give it, you give it water. Where do you buy your meat from? From a hell-out place chicken, like whatever. Are you a Muslim? Yes. A Muslim? Ah, OK. This worldview is coming from God? No, this is coming from the tradition, people, tradition there. No, a Muslim is a Muslim. He means you're a follower of God. Yeah, yeah, but it doesn't say anything about it. So that's why animals were put here for it. Because the argument is completely different. No, no, because our religion doesn't, in itself, doesn't really say anything about how you killed the animals. Do you believe allowed chickens are not tortured? You cut the head off, it's the simplest way to kill it. Where do they exist? Where are they born? They're born in farms. Chickens here are factory farms, yeah? They're found in factories, brother. Yeah, they are born, they're bred, they give all sort of bad stuff, like antibiotics, whatever, they hormones and stuff. And then they hell-out slaughter them, and they put a hell-out stamp on them. Yeah, but the way you head-out slaughter them is just cut the neck off, like it's the simplest, easiest way to kill them. But they're tortured first. But you mean tortured first. The existence inside of this shed, these chickens, right, they're bred to grow faster than their bodies can handle. So millions of them die in the farms before they reach a slaughterhouse. Yeah. They die, suffer and die in these sheds. But they go to the hell-out slaughterhouse, they cut their head off, and they call it hell-out. Yeah, this is bad practice. It doesn't say it's... Inherent in animal agriculture, no matter whether it's hell-out or not, I completely agree with you. It shouldn't be like that. And do you know that being vegan... It's just bad practice, it's not about... Yeah, but being vegan is completely consistent with being a Muslim. Yeah, I know. It's actually the best way to avoid torturing of animals. It's actually the most hell-out thing to do. It's not really... It doesn't work like that. But it falls within the ambit of realism, basically. Well, you don't know where you get your meat from. Well, that's why I said that we don't live in an ideal world. Yeah, but as a Muslim, if I was a Muslim, if I want to avoid haramth animals being tortured and suffering, then I would just be a vegan Muslim. Yeah, you could do it, you could do it. It's actually a sensible thing to do, and I'm not against it. I'm just saying you can, in fact, kill animals, but just don't torture them. But also, as a Muslim, how can you be okay with killing humans at all? I'm not okay with it. It's your hypothetical world in a hypothetical situation where no one is brothers, no one is sisters or mothers. It's just... I just followed you there. It's just... Okay, we'll get off of the... I don't think that you're a really strict, practicing Muslim anyway, like, to that degree, because otherwise, we would have got into an argument about Halal slaughter, which we never did. I debate with Muslims quite a lot, and you never brought up Islam or Halal, so we don't need to go there really. We had a pretty decent discussion about animal ethics in your position anyway, and I think we should just wrap it up now. Yeah, I see, I understand. Thank you for the conversation. Do you think the benefit argument went well or...? I mean, this kind of stuff happens not just in your area. You could take some random view and just go with this methodology to take it extreme, and it can end up in weird places, like weird hypothetical worlds. That's why I wanted to be more practical about it and more realistic. But I do understand your points. We can apply your ethical theory out to the real world right now, so it would still... Because there are people that don't have this trait that you talked about that exists right now. Babies are one, people with severe... Yeah, but they are going to... Yeah, but people with disability are not as well. People who are born without empathy as well. Yeah, but you don't just go out and kill them because there's some part of someone else. Yeah, but if they weren't, there are some that don't have any family as well. Yeah, but it's just... Yeah, you wouldn't accept killing them, though. Yeah, because it doesn't make them... Do you know why you wouldn't? Because I don't think that you actually value that trait. I think you actually value humans for a different reason because you know they experience the world like you do. No, that's part of it, but I think what differentiates is the main thing, is that our ability to differentiate... So if you found out right now I couldn't differentiate right and wrong, it's okay to kill me, me right now? No, it's not that. No, it's because somebody else is someone's. Yeah, but let's just say all my family and anyone that cared about me couldn't differentiate right and wrong either. So they wouldn't experience any suffering if I got killed. It's okay then? They would be insignificant. You know who it would matter to? It would matter to me that you killed me. I wouldn't want to die. I don't want you to kill me. Yeah, but then this wouldn't be any different from a basic animal instinct to survive. I think murder is wrong because it robs someone of their experience and you don't have the right to do that. That's why I think it's wrong. It's just not so practical to think like this in this world. That murder is wrong? No, no, just because animals can feel certain things that you can kill them. Okay, we can agree to disagree. I think murder is wrong for humans and animals. You think murder is okay for animals and certain human beings with certain traits? Murder is okay for humans as well. It depends what's the reason behind it. If you are trying to defend your home country... Self-defense is fine. We're not talking about self-defense here, I would do that. I would kill in self-defense, 100% If you're hungry, then you would kill as well. No, I don't think it's justified to kill people because I'm hungry. There are cases in the United States. Can I kill you because I'm hungry? No, there are cases of... Can I kill you if I'm hungry? Of course. And that wouldn't be bad? As I said, there are cases about this. Is it okay to do? Yeah, they're talking about Harvard Love School one. If you're hungry, I wouldn't want you to kill me, man. I don't think it's okay to kill someone just because you're hungry. You know the difference between okay, meaning ethical, and it happens. There's a difference here between something being okay, ethical, and it happens. I know, I know. I'm asking you, is it okay to kill someone if you're hungry? I've never been that hungry. Maybe you didn't too. You haven't been too. It doesn't matter, it still wouldn't make it ethical if I did it, it'd be wrong. Yeah, but these guys, these three guys in USA, they were excused by the Marshall Court, by the Supreme Court. They just, it was a boat trip and there were survivors on the boat trip. Maybe you heard about this one. Yeah, the Supreme Court of America, they think it's okay. Yeah, I'll have to look into that case. I don't think murder is justified if you're hungry. That's for sure. I think maybe he died and they ate him. But anyway, thank you for this heated, lovely discussion. It's been good, man. Thank you. I'm burning now. Thank you very much. Take care, brother.